According to an article at WorldNetDaily, reading from his site, Barack Obama would seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.  The DMA is supported by about 70% of Americans, as evidenced by the fact that many states have passed amendments to their constitutions setting marriage as between one man and one woman.  These amendments have been passed by voters by a high as 82%.

Read it here.

Yet, to pander to radical, special interest groups, Obama is willing to oppose the will of these millions of Americans.  He has also been willing to alienate traditional Christians by claiming his support for gay rights comes from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.  Interestingly, there is no mention of gays anywhere in this passage, but where it is mentioned, Romans chapter 1, he claims as an "obscure" passage.

As the campaign marches on, Obama is proving more and more that he is nothing more than a radical leftist mouthpiece.  The longer the campaign goes on, we have to ask ourselves; what change does he really want and is that change good?  What he seems to be for is changing America from its current moral and economic force in the world to one that is no different or better than the rest of the world.

Is this really the "change" we want?

Apparently President Bush was hoping for a better choice, too, as he is now endorsing Sen. McCain, the only choice left.  While the President has had months to hear what each candidate had to say and put his sway behind the one who would reflect his beliefs and opinions, yet he waited until there was only one choice.  That shows the problem most Conservatives are facing.

Conservatives of all backgrounds have lamented the lack of someone with true Conservative credentials.  Now, we are left with but one choice.  We must now decide to back McCain, stay home, or do the unthinkable, vote for a Liberal.

The only hope we are left with is the hope that McCain will begin to build bridges with us.  We know he can compromise, but he usually does it with people he agrees with, Liberals.  He will still need a majority of Conservatives to vote, so maybe he'll be interested in working with us.

So, as the President throws his weight behind the only man still standing, let's watch and see with this man does and says.  Only time will tell.

The California 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles has ruled that the First Amendment religion clause does not apply to parents who want to homeschool on the basis of religious beliefs.  In an opinion which eerily sounds like the law written by Adolph Hitler still in use in Germany today, the court found that a parents wish to homeschool because they do not agree with the teachings of the state is not reason enough for the state to allow them to do so, regardless of the fact that the California law states just that.  They determined that the states wish to teach student to conform to society overrules the parents wishes, no matter how degraded the society becomes.

Recently in California, the legislature passed, and Gov. Schwartzenegger signed, a law that not only makes it appropriate to teach alternative lifestyles such as homosexuality and transgenderism, but makes it a crime to teach in a way that would make someone from those groups uncomfortable.  Because of this, several groups are calling for the exodus of over 600,000 children this year from the California public schools.  This courts misinterpretation of the law, actually outright activism, is an obvious response.  The court is, in effect, telling those parents that they do not have a choice.

Homeschooling is growing in America.  With the slouching morals of public schools, complete lack of discipline in the classroom and the ever falling intellectual output, more and more parents are making the decision to teach their children themselves.  Statistics prove over and over that homeschooled children fare better on college entrance exams and in college classrooms than those educated in the public arena.  Yet, school boards and the teacher's union are in a constant battle to have homeschooling outlawed.

This latest move by a liberal, activist court in California is surely approaching the final straw.  While there is still the call for exodus from the classroom, this along with other actions taken in California over recent decades, leaves me to make a call for a different exodus; leave the state and let's give it back to Mexico.  With such newsworthy cities as San Francisco, Berkley and Hollywood, would we really lose that much if we ceded the whole state back to Mexico?  These fortresses of liberalism have surely proven that the state no longer wants to be part of this great nation.  With leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, among others, surely they would do better under Mexican rule.  They would certainly be popular!

So, show this court that you will not allow them to take your God-given rights, as citizens and parents, and move from that darkened state.  Leave them to their deviate lifestyle and anti-Americanism.  There is nothing left there, nor anything redeeming.

Read the WorldNetDaily story.

Recently in our town, Murfreesboro, TN, a young, 14-year-old, girl was raped by an 18-year-old boy on a school bus.  It happened over a 15 minute period, while the bus was both stopped and moving.  The whole ordeal was caught on the video camera located above the driver, including her pleas for help and for him to stop.  It happened a mere seven rows back from the driver and on a bus filled with approximately 60 other students.  It has been a week and the driver has been cleared of all wrong-doing and no other students have come forward to corroborate the girls story.

There is so much wrong with this, on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.  Granted, the boy did not undress her and engage in intercourse (he put his hand down her pants and penetrated her that way), but for no one to do anything disgusts me.  The driver claims he did not hear or notice her, despite the video having such audio (and we know how wonderful and sensitive those video camera mics are).  Now, one week later and the police are still asking someone to come forward and report what they saw and heard.  Yet, no one has come forward.

First, we have to look at the idea that this may not have been the first time this boy has done something like this to someone.  He was very bold in this instance, approaching her, forcing her to move over, then groping and accosting her.  Someone that moves so boldly, in such a public place, does not seem like someone who has never done it before.  More than likely, he has done something similar before and gotten away with it, driving him on with more boldness.  Hopefully, with his arrest and expulsion from the school system, other possible victims will come forward.

Next, the bus driver claims that he was busy keeping his eye on the road.  Yet, the video shows that the incident started while the bus was stopped.  What was he doing during this period?  Was he talking to another driver outside the bus?  Was he listening to his iPod, not paying attention to who entered his bus or what they were doing?  I rode a bus when I was young and our bus drivers always engaged us as we entered the bus and faced us prior to the bus leaving the school.  Then, as the bus was in motion, their eyes were regularly engaging us in the overhead mirror.  They also seemed to have the hearing of Superman, as they always caught us, even in a whisper.  Yet, the school board has cleared this man without any questions.

Next, what were the other students thinking?  Only one student is shown to have engaged the boy, trying to get him to converse.  Becoming bored, the thug went back to what he was doing.  No one else did so much as to tell the driver.  Surely if one of them had told the driver what was going on, he would have stopped and at least called the police.  None of the students used their phones to call 911, probably because they would have had their phone confiscated for taking it to school.  Wouldn't want that, now would we?  Instead, we can imagine them sitting there, watching the scene just as if they were watching a scene from Grand Theft Auto.  Have they really become so hardened by these video games that they can't realize that this is real life?

Finally, none of the parents of those bystanders have done anything to bring their children forward to witness.  Surely those parents whose students were on that bus know it, yet no one has dragged their little darling to the police station to give testimony of what they saw.  If it were my child standing by, and I knew it, and they didn't come forward on their own, I would devise more punishments than they could imagine if they chose to ignore what this girl had to endure.  They would surely think I thought they were the perpetrator.

So, what does this say about our society?  A young man can assault a young girl, scarring her for life, yet no one saw anything, even though they were all within 20 feet and a video camera clearly caught it all.  Have movies and video games and pornography made voyeurs of us all?  Have we become so desensitized to violence that we do nothing?  Have we become so selfish, caring about what will happen to us if we speak up, that we turn our heads and let the dregs of society get away with whatever they choose?

In the forums on the local news site, when someone mentions that the movie, porn and video game industries may shoulder some of the blame, they are assaulted as closed-minded censors.  They are ridiculed for believing that those items can affect the thought process of anyone.  To accuse them is to deny that we responsible for our choices.

This is far from the truth, as we are responsible for our own choices.  Yet, those mediums can distort how we view our world, therefore changing our perception of what those consequences will be.  These things engage our minds and release chemicals into our system that react with drug-like responses.  Just as the crack user can know that crack kills, the mind and body make life miserable if the person chooses to deny themselves that drug.

Yet, we cannot force all the blame on these industries.  We, as a society, have allowed them to become so powerful.  We have encouraged them by supporting them and we have become tolerant of the criminals that duplicate their scenes.  The criminal justice system has gone from protecting the victim, and potential witnesses, to protecting the criminal, hoping for rehabilitation, even when that is very unlikely.  Judges have removed the idea of punishment from prison and we have allowed it.

The only question left is, what will we, as a society, do to regain our sense of right and wrong?  We have worked so hard for so long to remove moral absolutes that we may have done more damage than can be repaired.  We have supported the idea that if someone wants to do something and it doesn't affect me, that it is their choice.  This moral relativism is now catching up with us.  We are reaping what we have sown.

The only way back, now, is to reestablish a foundation of right and wrong.  We must remove the idea that personal choice overrules the good of society.  That may mean some long accept practices will now become wrong, but the alternative is to move closer and closer to anarchy, which can only lead to a police-state where no one has any rights.  We must restore consequences.  Punishment must be unpleasant, harsh and memorable.  The worst dregs of society must be removed, either by capital punishment or permanent incarceration.  To allow the most violent in our society to return to the streets only emboldens others and threatens us all.

Surely we have not gone too far to return.  If we take back decency, we can restore a peaceful society.  To do nothing really should be an unacceptable possibility.

Since he began his bid for the White House, Sen. Barak Obama has screamed from the highest mountain that he will bring troops home from Iraq before his hand comes down at his swearing in.  It is what has gotten him the backing of Move On and the Leftist base.  It has energized them and boosted his chances in these primaries.

Now, when questioned about the possibility of al Qaeda setting up shop in Iraq, he has stated that he would reserve his right as Commander-in-Chief to send troops back in to battle them.  As Sen. McCain pointed out, al Qaeda is currently in Iraq and has set up shop.  Obama then quipped back that he reads the papers and he is aware that they are there.

So, my question is, why would he withdraw troops from a situation he would send them back into?

Since al Qaeda is currently in Iraq, why would he withdraw troops, allowing al Qaeda to gain strength and a foothold?  Would that not put our troops into a worse situation than they currently are in?  Would that not alienate our allies in the Iraqi government by showing them we are not committed to their survival, making the task more difficult than it needs to be?

What we see now is Obama trying to shift from his Leftist, pacifist position to satisfy his radical base to a position that will make him more palatable to the general voting public.  As with everything else we hear from him; words, words, words.  With the little experience he has, he has learned the value of empty rhetoric.

He can complain all he wants about the "illegal" war in Iraq (he'll also have to deal with the illegal action Bill Clinton took in Kosovo that has led to the instability of that region of the world), but the truth is that we are now fighting al Qaeda in the Middle East, not here in America.  The vast majority of Congressmen and Senators, on both sides of the aisle, including Sens. Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton, believed for many years that Iraq was indeed a front in the War on Terror.  We have the responsibility to fight them and defeat them there.

Now, we will begin to see a whole new Obama.  He will begin to run to the middle, hoping to fool America into believing that he is the right man for the job.  We will not, though, be fooled.

Compassion is a word that is thrown around by both Democrats and Republicans.  While both sides approach the subject from complete different directions, both are determined that their brand of compassion is the Christian attitude.  So, I thought I would address what both forms of compassion entail, in respect to Christianity (since this really is a Christian nation).

First of all, socialism cannot be compatible with Christianity.  It is, in fact, at odds with Christian teaching.  Socialism is determined to provide equality and welfare by government intervention.  This is what both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama want.  The idea is that the government must take care of every aspect of life, from fair wages to health care to care for the poor.  Christianity, as Jesus taught, teaches that it is up to the people, as individuals, to care for one another.  This is why they are incompatible; socialism preaches government responsibility by compulsion and Christianity preaches individual responsibility from love.

Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on Christian compassion.  Without that, it has the potential to be detrimental to society.  If capitalism is to be compassionate, people must respect one another and be driven by love for one another.  It becomes mandatory that those with means care for those who do not.  They must exercise restraint, resist greed and help those who cannot help themselves.

As we look at the early days of Christianity, communal living was evident.  Scriptures teach that all lived in harmony and had all things in common, where those who had used their excess to care for those in need, as they had need.  That does not mean that all were equal, or that those who had means split those means equally with those who did not have means, but rather they provided for the necessities of those who could not do so for themselves.  It by no means meant that they simply gave to the poor without requirement that they attempt to care for themselves, but that they were expected to attempt to work and provide what they could.

In this respect, socialism is the antithesis of Christianity.  It expects that all will take what they have and distribute it to those who have less, regardless of their need or attempt to care for themselves.  It, then, produces class warfare, envy and laziness.  It is often done by compulsion rather than freewill.  Therefore, it goes against the very teachings of Christ.

Yet, capitalism that has lost its Christian soul, is ruled by greed and selfishness.  That will have no compassion, either.  When, though, a capitalist realizes his duty to be a blessing through his Christian principals, he will have compassion and will fulfill the teachings of Christ.

The problem with our American society, though, is that we have lost our Christian soul.  This is not to say that those without a Christian underpinning are unable to act with compassion, but those that follow the teachings of Christ, dutifully, are more predisposed to show consistent compassion.  On the other side, socialists hold that the greatest form of good in the world is government, therefore violate the very foundation of Christian teaching.

Truly, unless this country return to its Christian foundation, neither socialism nor capitalism will provide the true compassion required to return this country to greatness.  Clearly, though, capitalism provides the only path to that.  The socialism of the left can only lead us down a destructive path, to be sure.

With the New York Times article yesterday, Sen. John McCain entered unfamiliar territory; being a Republican. 

For years, the NY Times, along with the whole of the Mainstream Media (MSM) has referred to Sen. McCain as a "maverick" for his going against traditional Republican positions.  They went so far as to endorse him just weeks ago.  He has been the darling of leftist media and given passes on being attacked for the "R" after his name.

Now, with the nomination in sight, the NY Times and other MSM are gearing up to unleash their full fury on him.  It's just not a position he's familiar with.  He may be somewhat used to the criticism, though, as he has received it for years from the right.

Even though you may be used to getting attacked, it can really catch you by surprise when it comes from your allies.  That must be what he is experiencing now.  He'll have to get his feet, but will they let him have that much time before coming at him again?

One thing he can expect is that as the general election approaches, he can expect these attacks from his friends to increase and intensify.  For that reason alone, he should look to the right for help and reach out, across the aisle, for help from the very Conservatives he has snubbed and shunned for so many years.

Maybe, then, this attack by the NY Times is just what we Conservatives need to get Sen. McCain on board with our principals.

A lot has been made of Michelle Obama's comment about being proud of her country for the first time in her life.  As I look at the events of her lifetime, I can almost understand her statement.  From the capture of our embassy in Tehran under a President determined to do nothing, to a President who couldn't determine the definition of "is" and swore he didn't have sexual relations with a woman he then had to admit to having the affair with.  I'm not particularly proud of those moments, either.

Far from being an Obama apologist, I think it's important to remember who she was speaking to when making the speech.  She was speaking to the Leftist base.  That is just the kind of crowd that wants to hear that message.  There have been all sorts of statements to that crowd, including equating military service with those too dumb to attend college.

Michelle Obama should definitely be held to task regarding her statement.  She should be pressed to define why she thinks there are no moments in the last 40 or so years that we should not be proud of.  She should explain why she is not proud of our first steps on the moon, the destruction of the Berlin Wall, and our undying unity in the aftermath of a horrific terrorist attack on New York City.

More importantly, we should hold the feet of the Left to the fire, in that they demand their puppets to make these kinds of statements.  This falls into the same category as the NY Times "General Betray Us" ad.  The Left is so destructive and divisive that candidates must make these kinds of statements to keep them happy.

So, while I think Michelle Obama's comments are telling, they are just as telling on the Left as they are on her.  If we think these people can bring us together as a nation and can lead us to continue to be world leaders, we are sadly mistaken.  The only outcome that can possibly come from this group is the utter elimination of the US as a nation, at the very least as a superpower.

As you listen to the news, even on Fox, commentators continuously speak of the idea that John McCain should ignore and write off the Conservative base of the Republican party.  They speak of the idea that there is no pleasing them for McCain, so he might as well forget them.  I'm sure the MSM would love nothing better than that.

The biggest problem with this is that it marginalizes the base.  Rather than McCain having to compromise and actually change his position on issues important to the base, he can just write them off, believing that they would rather have him than either of the Democrats.  This could damage the Republican Party, not just in this election, but in elections to come.

The Conservative base of the Republican Party will not tolerate being marginalized.  It would not take long before the base would determine it in their best interest to form a third party.  In the short term, the Republican losses would be devastating to both the party and the country.  Democratic wins and gains would lead to the loss of personal rights, the redistribution of wealth and economic depression.  Yet, in the long term, this third party would be able to establish itself as the true agent for change and could sweep into offices to rescue the country.  It would only cost the country about half a century of time to recover.

So, while the MSM would like us to believe that marginalizing the Conservatives is the way to go for McCain, the long term damage he could do to this country by such arrogant speculation would be far worse.  My suggestion is that he use his ability to compromise and compromise with his own side this time.

Conservatives are splitting at the sight of McCain like the Red Sea did for Moses.  Many Conservative pundits and bloggers are pointing to his past to show that he is not our guy.  At the same time, some Conservative politicians are endorsing him, claiming the greater good of the movement.  Yet, in spite of these endorsements, he has not convinced or excited the base.  So, what must he do to do that?

Many died-in-the-wool Conservatives will not be easily won.  The remember McCain-Feingold's assault on free speech.  They remember the "Gang of 14" meant to keep Conservative judges off the bench.  They remember the calls to close Guantanamo Bay and bring known terrorists to our shores and open our courts to them.  And, of course, they remember the call to grant citizenship to 20 million people who have broken our laws to get here, stolen identities to work and kill more people every year from drunk driving than the whole of the Iraq war.  He has encouraged compromise, even when he was part of the majority.  Can anyone really blame the base for being skeptical?

With all this history, how can we believe McCain has now had a "change of heart?"  He talks about having a revelation and now supporting the Conservative ideas in each of these issues, but how do we really know he has done so?  Politicians are known to say whatever it takes to get elected.  Can a leopard really change his spots, though?

No, we the base demand something concrete to verify that we are going to be respected.  We need something tangible to hold him to after the election.  He must be made to sign a pledge that he will support the base, over and above his desire to compromise.  Without such a show of reconciliation, there can be no proof.

I highly doubt, though, that McCain would be willing to sign such a pledge.  I don't believe he has any desire to compromise with his base, he saves that for the enemies of his base.

So, while there can be no doubt that McCain is a fiscal conservative, completely rejecting all earmarks in the past, there is more to being a Conservative than just that.  He must respond to our concerns and provide us with the proof we need.  Without such, he should plan for the attacks and criticism to continue, because without said pledge, he does not represent us.

Since coming into the leadership position in the House last year, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has done more to aid and comfort terrorist than she has to serve the American people and provide for our safety.  Because she is filled with so much hatred for President Bush and traditional American values, she has been more interested in slowing down legislation that protects us and promoting legislation that will destroy everything we hold dear.  Her very actions benefit terrorists wishing to do harm to our great nation.

The latest incident is her refusal to bring the FISA bill, a bill that allows our intelligence agencies to gather information on those who communicate with terrorists overseas, to a vote.  Instead, she has decided that the House should take a break, letting the current legislation expire.  This, after the Senate was able to put together bipartisan legislation to extend the act.  Apparently, after only about 5 weeks of work, the House needs a break.

During this time of "work", there have been endless hours of hearings to determine whether Roger Clemens used steroids and a vote to hold Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in contempt for their refusal to testify in the bogus, worthless, obstructionist hearings regarding the Presidents decision to fire his employees.  These follow a pattern of ineffective leadership by the Congresswoman from California.

Yet, when they do pass legislation, it is legislation that is detrimental to our nation.  I speak most of the recent stimulus package passed.  This is a bill destined to undermine and do very little good to our economy.  They pass omnibus bills that include billions in pork, talk of raising taxes, then give $150 billion to people who have very little chance of boosting the economy.

Pelosi's leadership has led to historically low approval ratings for Congress.  The people of the US see the worthlessness of her leadership, they see the ineffectiveness of the work of the House under her leadership, yet she continues to operate in this manner.  The only ones I see that have that kind of tenacity are the terrorists determined to destroy us.  Looking at the eventual outcome of Pelosi's actions, they have the same goal.

This week, a major terrorist for Hezbollah has been eliminated.  Imad Mughniyeh has been responsible for many, many terrorist acts over the past few decades.  Just as Muslims dance in the streets at the death of their enemies, so we should be dancing openly in our streets at the death of this man.  Yet, we are going about with life as normal.

In just six short years, we seem to have forgotten what our enemy is capable of.  We do not rejoice at the extermination of our enemies, who will no longer be able to bring terror to this world.  I am reminded that when WWII ended, there were ticker-tape parades and kissing in the streets.  Yet, we consider ourselves to civilized to rejoice at the demise of our brutal enemy.

I have to wonder if we even have the stomach to win this war?  Do we have the fortitude to fight it properly?  Do we really realize what's at stake?

During WWII, the enemy kept quiet where their leaders were going to be, for fear of attack.  Today, Imad's funeral is taking place.  There are those in the streets mourning his loss.  Those are the very people who will take up the banner he carried and try to carry it forward.  They are the next great threat.  Tell me why we are not dropping bombs on that funeral?

The enemy has no fear of open association.  Whether it's cartoons in a paper or the death of an ally, they protest and rally in the streets.  If we were really determined to win this war, we would eliminate the threats before they are threats.  We have seen how they recruit children and spread their hate to the next generation.  Do we think we can challenge that successfully with kindness and words?

We are fighting an enemy that respects no life, not even their own.  They recruit their children and strap bombs on the mentally disabled.  Does that sound like an enemy that can be reasoned with?

We watch movies with extreme violence, play video games where the objective is to kill everyone before we are killed, yet we have no stomach to actually kill those who are out to harm us.

Do we really stand a chance in this new age war?

Today, Congress has spent the entire day grilling Roger Clemens as to whether he took steroids or not, and whether players should be tested for steroids.  I'm so glad they have absolutely nothing else to discuss and debate.

The eventual outcome of the hearings is pointless.  There is absolutely nothing Congress can, or should, do in this situation.  Everyone knows that players have used steroids.  Everyone knows that baseball should do a better job of testing.  Everyone knows that, in the interest of the integrity of the game, baseball will do a better job of policing itself.

My main problem is that we have wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars paying these representatives to deal with a problem that affects so few of us.  Of course, that's the whole idea behind earmarks; they affect so few people.  I guess that means Congress is hardwired to spend so much of its time on wasteful things such as this.

This is just one more proof that they is a great need for greater accountability from our leaders.  It doesn't seem as though we are going to get it, though.  They are just not interested in being accountable to us, nor do they feel the need.  No wonder so many people ask, "what's the point," when it comes to elections.

We have all read the news stories of activist judges making laws in their own image from the bench.  We also know of the judges who determine that punishment and jail time are unnecessary.  Do we realize that these actions are destroying the Constitution?

Today, in my hometown, a local judge handed down a three year sentence for a man in his mid-40s who raped a 16-year-old boy, exposing him to HIV.  The jury gave him an 18-year sentence last fall, but today he was told he would only serve three years of that.

These kinds of stories cause us to become very angry.  As a result, we contact our legislators, demanding tougher mandatory sentences.  Also, when we see activist judges rewriting the law, we demand that our representatives pass tougher laws that will overturn what these judges have done.  The unfortunate result of such actions is to undermine the Constitution.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they clearly stated the roles of each branch of government.  They detailed what the Legislative branch and Judicial branch were responsible for.  Now, the Legislative branch is being asked to overstep its bounds, such as telling judges the minimum sentence for crimes.  Clearly, that should be the sole discretion of the judges, but since they are derelict in their duties, we must intervene.

The end result of these actions could be very detrimental, indeed.  If we end up making the Judicial branch irrelevant, we undermine the whole justice system.  Yet, if we take no action, it becomes irrelevant and undermined, anyway.  Therefore, we must demand that judges who are either appointed or elected, pledge to uphold true justice.  We can look no further than the days of our founding for examples.  Punishment was harsh and constant.  There was little leniency.  It was meant to send the message that actions against society would not be tolerated.  We must send that message again.

John McCain is picking up some pretty heavy conservative endorsements as of late.  President Bush, among others, are telling us that McCain's conservative credentials are enough to give us rest and assurance as we head into the convention.  Yet, there are some very questionable links to McCain that suggest otherwise.

According to several reports, John McCain has been linked to funding from uber-liberal George Soros since 2001.  Soros has made statements that he is going to buy the White House, and has been a heavy funder for the likes of John Kerry, the Clintons and other far left politicians.  He has funded other anti-American, far left groups that go against the very grain of conservatism.

WorldNetDaily

Michelle Malkin

United Conservatives of Virginia

I hope that conservatives will look at this line of funding and let McCain know that we see his tricks.  We are not about to allow someone with links to Soros' money anywhere near the White House.  Soros' politics are not American, much less conservative.  We have no idea just how much pull he will have on a McCain presidency.  I'd like not to find out.